Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

9/24/2019
10:00 AM
Daniel Wood
Daniel Wood
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

6 Best Practices for Performing Physical Penetration Tests

A cautionary tale from a pen test gone wrong in an Iowa county courthouse.

Physical penetration tests are an excellent and often overlooked way to test an organization's security posture. However, they can come with serious consequences for testers if they aren't properly prepared. Look no further than the recent arrest of two pen testers probing Iowa's Dallas County courthouse security.

According to a September 13 report in the Des Moines Register, the men were employed with Coalfire, a cybersecurity adviser with headquarters in Colorado, and outfitted with "numerous burglary tools." They told authorities they were "hired to test out the courthouse alarm system's viability and to gauge law enforcement's response time, an alleged contract that Dallas County officials said they had no knowledge of...."

The Register reported:

Authorities later found out the state court administration did, in fact, hire the men to attempt "unauthorized access" to court records "through various means" in order to check for potential security vulnerabilities of Iowa's electronic court records, according to Iowa Judicial Branch officials.

But the state court administration "did not intend, or anticipate, those efforts to include the forced entry into a building," a Wednesday news release from the Iowa Judicial Branch read.

Coalfire, in a September 18 press release, said that the company and the Iowa State Court Administration "believed they were in agreement regarding the physical security assessments for the locations included in the scope of work. Yet, recent events have shown that Coalfire and State Court Administration had different interpretations of the scope of the agreement." The statement further noted that both parties plan to conduct independent reviews and release the contractual documents executed between both parties

Obviously, there are many sides to this story, and more will come out. In the meantime, here are six lessons learned from my own experience conducting physical penetration testing:

1. Get It in Writing
Out of the gate, define the rules of the engagement (ROE) in as much detail as possible. You don't want to find yourself in a holding cell wondering why "various means" didn't give you carte blanche to break in. The statement of work (SOW) also needs to specifically define what you're going to be testing, what you are trying to access or accomplish, and how. Remove as much ambiguity from the ROE and SOW as possible; otherwise, the engagement and its results will be left to interpretation rather than hard facts.

Furthermore, there needs to be indemnification language in the SOW that covers when you've been given bad scope information from the client. Assume that if it can go wrong, it will, and then cover it here.

During physical assessments, we suggest having the client first conduct a "dry run" of your approach to see what problems occur. We also have their signatory authority review the operation order (OPORD) and approve it, paying special attention to the avenues of approach or the concept of operations (CONOPS) in how the engagement will be executed. That way, things like whether "forced physical entry has been authorized" will never be an issue, which is in the mutual best interest of all.

2. Take Your Paperwork with You
When doing physical penetration testing, our consultants carry the basic equivalent of a "get out of jail free" card. In most cases, that means a signed letter of permission with legally binding language allowing them to be doing exactly what they are doing. Having copies of the OPORD and ROE aren't bad ideas either.

3. Have a Dedicated Point of Contact During Testing
It's imperative that somebody is available to keep a misunderstanding from escalating into something worse. The key is to have multiple ways to resolve problems if things go bad. If nothing else, your own contacts need to know what's going on.

It's also important to ensure that you have properly planned your engagement. We use the PACE approach — having Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency plans of action throughout our engagements. Chances are, a properly planned engagement may still have some drift, but knowing whom to contact and when can save you from a lot of grief — getting arrested or worse.

4. Go Further if You Can
If possible, inform local law enforcement, in advance of the testing, about what you will be doing, and provide them with signed permission from your client. If not out of scope, make sure the facilities and/or physical security heads know about your testing plans, too. It matters. 

5. Understand What You're Walking Into
You need to understand your client's escalation and response procedures. There are certain situations during physical pen testing against critical infrastructure or other secure facilities when someone breaking in, even if conducted during an authorized test, will trigger response actions and will still be considered a compliance violation such as, for example, critical infrastructure protection standards from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit international regulatory authority over Canada, United States, and Mexico. Due to these special considerations, we make arrangements to be greeted on the other side by an observer who is "escorting" us from a distance, so we aren't in violation of any federal laws or regulatory requirements.

Each situation is unique, and all factors need to be considered. For instance, commercial facilities that frequently receive threats of violence, and/or have increased risk of terrorist attacks may have their physical security personnel armed. Understand the dangers before you go in, what regulations you might violate, and get in sync with your client on handling complexities when they arise. 

6. Know Your Exposure
Ultimately, it's not on the client to protect you. It's on you to protect both yourself and the client. From a legal perspective, you want to know whether your errors and omissions/professional liability insurance has coverage for these kinds of situations. You want to make sure both liability and indemnification calls out how general situations of scope breach are handled and define some baseline rules. And you want to understand the difference between negligence and gross negligence.

It's important to go to great lengths to define your engagements with clients to include scope and authorized versus unauthorized actions. All engagements are partnerships, and by providing clear and proactive communication, you can ensure the best outcome for all parties involved.

 

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's story: "'Playing Around' with Code Keeps Security, DevOps Skills Sharp."

Daniel Wood (CISSP, GPEN) is the Associate Vice President of Consulting at Bishop Fox, where he leads all service lines and develops strategic initiatives. He has over 15 years of experience in cybersecurity and is a subject matter expert in red teaming, insider threat, and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Data Privacy Protections for the Most Vulnerable -- Children
Dimitri Sirota, Founder & CEO of BigID,  10/17/2019
Sodinokibi Ransomware: Where Attackers' Money Goes
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  10/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
7 Threats & Disruptive Forces Changing the Face of Cybersecurity
This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at the biggest emerging threats and disruptive forces that are changing the face of cybersecurity today.
Flash Poll
2019 Online Malware and Threats
2019 Online Malware and Threats
As cyberattacks become more frequent and more sophisticated, enterprise security teams are under unprecedented pressure to respond. Is your organization ready?
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-18214
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
The Video_Converter app 0.1.0 for Nextcloud allows denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) via multiple concurrent conversions because many FFmpeg processes may be running at once. (The workload is not queued for serial execution.)
CVE-2019-18202
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
Information Disclosure is possible on WAGO Series PFC100 and PFC200 devices before FW12 due to improper access control. A remote attacker can check for the existence of paths and file names via crafted HTTP requests.
CVE-2019-18209
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-19
templates/pad.html in Etherpad-Lite 1.7.5 has XSS when the browser does not encode the path of the URL, as demonstrated by Internet Explorer.
CVE-2019-18198
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In the Linux kernel before 5.3.4, a reference count usage error in the fib6_rule_suppress() function in the fib6 suppression feature of net/ipv6/fib6_rules.c, when handling the FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF flag, can be exploited by a local attacker to corrupt memory, aka CID-ca7a03c41753.
CVE-2019-18197
PUBLISHED: 2019-10-18
In xsltCopyText in transform.c in libxslt 1.1.33, a pointer variable isn't reset under certain circumstances. If the relevant memory area happened to be freed and reused in a certain way, a bounds check could fail and memory outside a buffer could be written to, or uninitialized data could be disclo...